I've been thinking of writing a self-help book. It would provide tips on how to be happy, content, secure and fulfilled, not only by marrying the right person, but by being, well, right--in the wing sense of things, I mean. See, I noticed that back when I affiliated myself on the other side of the political spectrum, I had trouble making sense of things. I was certain that my worldview was the correct one, and yet it was marked by so many holes and gaps, ones I filled up with buckets of guilt. Now that I've transitioned, so to speak, an enormous--nay, crushing--weight has been lifted, and I find that I am lighter in both outlook and spirit. Best of all, the anxiety bubble that had encased me for much of my life has--pop!--disappeared.

I am white. I know that's a terribly big surprise, considering that I write a blog called Stuff White People Like, but I mean it, I'm white.

Like really white.

I'm not attempting to assert some sort of superiority through my whiteness; quite the opposite actually. Thanks to my liberal upbringing, I am imbued with the appropriate amount of guilt and shame about my ancestors and their actions in the New World.

Even in my home, I can't offer a blanket to a nonwhite friend without the fear that they will look at me and say "no smallpox on this right?" A joke, but I still want to apologize.

I'm a white male. I belong to a group that pretty much always been able to own land and to vote. I'm more or less from the kind that grabbed power somewhere after the fall of Rome and never let go. In other words, I'm the kind of white guy that has never experienced any real oppression.

Although I guess my ancestors technically left England because of some religious persecution and in spite of a rough boat ride and a rough first Thanksgiving, it's safe to say it worked out pretty well. Unless you got one of those aforementioned blankets.

But in addition to being white and having ancestors on the Mayflower, I'm also Canadian. Yes, I know that might actually make me more white than before, but it also technically makes me an immigrant to this country.

Still, I am loath to call myself an immigrant because I don't want to demean the very real, very difficult challenges faced by immigrants to this country who have had to overcome differences in language, culture and distance from their families. I would say my biggest hardship has been trying to find Ketchup Chips...

Poor guy. Can't he see that lefty guilt is an intoxicant--and therefore horribly addictive? Get thee to a 12-step program post haste, Christian, before it devours you!

Here's a peek down the rabbit hole that is "human rights" hell in B.C. It's a snippet of Chief 'Roo Heather MacNaughton's message in the BCHRT's most recent Annual Report and explains how the state-sanctioned highway robbery works:

Because settlement meetings are usually a confidential process, the Tribunal does not publish the results.In many cases, the settlement meeting resolves other aspects of the parties’ relationship and has transformative impacts without the adversarial process of a hearing. Many cases resolve on the basis of an acknowledgement that there has been a breach of the Code and an apology. In others, the mediated solution results in systemic change and awards greater than those that might be obtained after a hearing.

The Code provides for the Tribunal to make mediation mandatory. For policy reasons, the Tribunal has continued to keep mediation as a voluntary process although parties may find themselves ordered to attend a mediation where, in the Tribunal’s view, they will benefit from the assistance of a Tribunal member.

To translate for those unfamiliar with the process: Should you find yourself on the receiving end of a "human rights" complaint, you will spare yourself a great deal of time, money and anguish if you submit to the (in camera) shakedown at the outset. (Viz the Vancouver comedy club owner, reduced to insolvency because he failed to heed this advice.) You, my friend, are a powerless Hobson, and you had better face up to the grim reality that the all-powerful 'roos offer what amounts to a Hobson's Choice (which, FYI, means you've no choice at all).

David (ig)Noble, one of York U's nuttier nutjobs (and that's saying something), has lost his bid to punish his employer for being in thrall to the spectral and insidious Zionist lobby. Shalom Toronto reports that

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has thrown out a case brought by a York University history professor alleging that the university targeted him for protesting its policy of cancelling classes on the High Holidays.

David Noble, a professor who teaches in the Department of Social and Political Thought at York, claimed that the university had purposely given him sparsely attended Friday afternoon classes in retaliation after he criticized its policy of not holding classes during Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Noble, who is Jewish, had threatened to hold classes on Jewish holidays in protest. He eventually cancelled classes on all Muslim holidays instead. In 2006, he initiated a human rights complaint over the issue.

Last fall, York reversed its High Holidays policy, which had been in place since 1974. Classes now go on as scheduled.

On Friday, adjudicator Michael Gottheil released a 32-page decision. He concluded that he could not find any evidence to back up Noble’s claims that the university was purposely ostracizing him by forcing him to teach unpopular Friday classes...

The adjudicator also threw out Noble’s claim that in 2005 York told the professor they would retaliate against him if he held classes on Jewish holidays.

Gottheil ruled that York was not acting maliciously when it did not intercede following a disruption in Noble’s class caused by a student protesting his opposition to the university’s High Holidays statute.

Likewise, Gottheil concluded that he could find no validity to Noble’s charge that York struck back at the professor by issuing a press release defending itself against a controversial pamphlet Noble distributed at a campus event. The pamphlet, entitled "The York University Foundation: The Tail That Wags the Dog (Suggestions for Further Research),"attacked the influence of what Noble termed the “Israeli lobby” on the fundraising of York’s foundation, which he called the “tail”. In the flyer, Noble claimed that a “pro-Zionist” influence drove the political direction of York officials, who had the ability to “wag the dog.”...

Anyone who could claim that Salman Hossain's latest alma mater is "pro-Zionist" ought to have his head examined (but not by a "human rights" judge, since we the taxpayers are forced to shoulder the cost of such judgements).

There's nothing Toronto loves more than a good film festival. Here are a few of the films on offer at Hot Docs, a fete of documentary films. (Hot Docs is sort of like a downscale TIFF; a TIFF sans limos, glitz and celebrities). They (and many others) have been written up by one or another of NOW Magazine's lefty scribbers in NOW's special Hot Docs pull out section.

The diverging fates of two al Qaida members – and brothers-in-law – who were close to Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s play out in elegant contrast in Laura Poitras’s gripping documentary.

Nasser al-Bahri (aka Abu Jandal) and Salim Hamdan were bin Laden’s bodyguard and driver respectively, and both men fell into U.S. custody after the 9/11 attacks. Hamdan was subjected to “enhanced interrogation” and dumped into Guantánamo Bay. Al-Bahri, who seems far more connected, was released and now drives a taxi in Yemen and preaches jihad to impressionable young men.

Their radically different fortunes mirror America’s post-9/11 struggle to define its national character – and underscore The Oath with a powerful moral anguish.

Sounds like the "enhanced interrogation" did the one dude--and us infidels--a world of good. Whereas the other unenhanced one--the one who supposedly has his shit together--is as zany as ever.

In The Name Of The Family, writes NOW's clueless freedom-derider Susan G. Cole, uses "the death of Mississauga teen Aqsa Parvez as a starting point" and "probes the murders of young girls in Muslim families." In other words, it's a doc about the phenomenon of "honour killing," not that Susan G., a High Priestess of P.C., would ever employ such a loaded phrase. No, she's fit to be tied because the filmmaker

wastes the key moment in the film, when teenaged boys and girls at Parvez’s high school comment that the killings have nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with male power.

I understand Saywell’s passion for giving voice to young women coping with the controlling men in their Muslim families. But the result is a film that disturbs as much by its demonization of Islam as by the murders it describes.

Yeah, it's a bummer when the facts--and a doc about the facts--don't conform to your uninformed foregone conclusions.

Finally--and this one is not to be missed (but only if you bring along a sackful of over-ripe tomatoes to hurl in disgust at the screen)--there's American Radical: The Trials Of Norman Finkelstein. Here's Cole's capsule summary (with my bolds):

Haunted by the Holocaust – his parents were survivors – Norman Finkelstein loathes how that tragedy has been used to defend Zionist excess.

American Radical tracks the professor’s various speaking engagements, showing what he thinks and how he expresses himself – stridently, aggressively, reductively. This is not a bridge builder.

Unless he’s in Palestine. A fascinating scene in Ramallah shows him connecting to the locals and urging peace in ways he never does in America.

Eventually, his allegation that pro-Israel lawyer Alan Dershowitz is a plagiarist does in Finkelstein’s academic career. He just can’t let go of the claim and underestimates Dershowitz’s influence.

Tapping interviews with Finkelstein’s family, supporters and opponents, American Radical creates a fascinating, complex portrait of a right-thinking man who keeps doing all the wrong things.

Why, he sounds like a regular Job--a poor schlemiel forever trying to do the "right" thing, but unfairly over-burdened by the exigencies of DershowitzZionistsJews life.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Douglas Story, a Chantilly dump truck driver for the Virginia Department of Transportation, says he wanted to grab people's attention when he paid $224.90 to have a mural of the burning World Trade Center detailed onto the tailgate of his Ford F-150 along with a sticker that reads: "Everything I ever needed to know about Islam I learned on 9/11."

But he got more than he bargained for when a photo of his pickup went viral on the Web last week. Motorists and Muslim groups complained that his Virginia vanity license plate -- 14CV88 -- was really code for neo-Nazi, white supremacist sentiments. The state Department of Motor Vehicles voted last week to recall Story's plates and force him to buy new ones.

"There is absolutely no way I'd have anything to do with Hitler or Nazis," Story said Wednesday. He contacted The Washington Post after an article about his plate appeared last week; the state, citing privacy rules, had declined to release the identity of the plate's owner. "My sister-in-law and my niece are Jewish. I went to my niece's bat mitzvah when she turned 13 three years ago. Does that sound like something an anti-Semite would do?"

Story says the numbers 14 and 88 on his plate were not references to a white power slogan or "Heil Hitler," as the Council on American-Islamic Relations theorized, but an homage to his favorite NASCAR drivers: Tony Stewart, who drives car No. 14, and Dale Earnhardt Jr., who drives No. 88...

The Ceej toots its own horn (because, hey, if it doesn't, who will?), posting this piece from the CJN about a Ceej "interfaith" event. (On the q.t., I hear it was kind of a bust--certainly nothing to brag about.) I especially enjoyed this para, which captures multiculi cluelessness in all its willfully ignorant and insidious glory:

The members of the panel discussion all expressed the commonalities between the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths and all stressed the importance of that recognition. The panel discussion contained references to the Quran and the Talmud in an attempt to show their similarities. In [General Secretary of the United Church's Nora] Saunders portion of the discussion, she describes how conflict is a result of the lack of knowledge of the opposing side involved. In her speech she describes a Palestinian youth who describes their first encounter with an Israeli to be an encounter with an Israeli soldier. Similarly, she mentions how an Israeli youth may only meet a Palestinian for the first time while enlisted in the army. Saunders described this to be the reason for a lack of understanding between the future generations involved in the Middle Eastern conflict.

Actually, Nora, the reason for "a lack of understanding" is that the Quran abominates Jewry as being the apogee of iniquity and the lowest of the low. The Israel-Palestinian imbroglio is merely the latest manifestation of that age-old contempt. Another reason for the lack of understanding--and one can hardly stress this enough--is that "jihad is the way, sharia is the goal," a statement that could not be any clearer in expressing Islam's long-term goals, not only for the world's one lone and tiny Jewish State, but for all mankind.

The keynote speaker at an upcoming CIC fundraiser is Shaikh Dr. Abdullah Idris Ali. Dr. Ali, a native of Sudan, now resides in Toronto. Prior to coming here he lived in the U.S., where he headed up faux-moderate/Hamas-supporting Wahhabi racket ISNA.Glad to have you around, Shaikh. Thanks for adding a particularly vivid strand to our incomparable multiculti tapestry!

A Canadian human rights group is accusing the University of Ottawa of "spying" and attempting to stifle free speech after top university administrators considered preventing a well-known Burmese activist from speaking on campus.

Canadian Friends of Burma says it will ask the Ontario government to grant provincial ombudsman Andre Marin power to investigate the conduct of the University of Ottawa administrators in relation to the event.

More than a dozen internal emails, reaching as high as the university's former president and obtained through freedom of information requests by the Canadian Friends of Burma, show that the school was concerned about a speech by human rights activist Ka Hsa Wa at a December 2007 campus event discussing alleged human rights abuses by a French oil company in Burma.

The emails show that when the student federation-sponsored event went ahead, the university administration sent at least one unidentified person to monitor what was said, take notes and report back.

Usually, Harpoon Siddiqui manages to disguise his disdain for Canada, a country that, foolishly, has garlanded him with respect and prizes. Today, however, he allows the mask to slip more than a bit. In a defense of "multiculturalism" and those who haul into their new home some baggage that is best left back in the old country, Harpoon heaps derision on Canada--both the country and the concept. (He also makes sure to boo Jews, who, though Canadian-born, continue to advocate on behalf of Israel.) Why, he asks, should newcomers be "admonished" (his word) to "conform to our way of life" and "adopt Canadian values" when "Canada" is nothing more than the sum of tapped out cliches, and therefore unworthy of their allegiance?:

What do we mean when we hector someone to "be Canadian"? Play hockey? At least watch it, preferably with a beer in hand? Or, in Quebec, eat poutine and listen to Celine Dion? What else? If one can't catalogue it all, how can we implement it?

If by "it" you mean "being Canadian," all I can say is that, unlike sharia, "it" isn't something to be "implemented". "It" is the totality of Canada's history, which incorporates a longstanding tradition of democracy and freedom, a tradition that, admittedly, was severely compromised when Trudeau's multiculturalism took hold as our prevailing social doctrine. If all "Canada" means to you is hockey, poutine and beer; if you can see nothing of value in being "strong and free"; then, man, you're in the wrong country--and the wrong Dar.

Update: My letter:

Since Haroon Siddiqui believes Canada has little in the way of "identity" to offer newcomers, and since he reduces Canada--its proud traditions of freedom and democracy and the panorama of history which has shaped us--to a handful of pathetic cliches ("hockey," "beer," "poutine" and "Celine Dion"; what, no "double-double" at "Timmy's"?), when can we expect him to return his Order of Canada?

KHAN YUNIS, GAZA STRIP—About 70 men with big muscles and small shorts posed and flexed on stage before a panel of judges and a few thousand fans, all seeking prizes in the Gaza bodybuilding championship.

But the sight of men lathered in oil and wearing little more than underwear on stage was unusual for the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, where the Islamist militant group has imposed a so-called virtue campaign that mandates head scarves and form-concealing gowns for women and girls in government offices and schools.

As part of its campaign, Hamas strongly encourages such dress elsewhere, and its policemen have recently forced men to wear shirts on the beach and asked mixed couples seen together to prove they are married or related.

But Hamas doesn't reject bodybuilding — as long as only men are around to see it.

Of course, this being the Toronto Star, it's pretty much obligatory to get in a swipe at Israel and, if at all possible, to bury the lede (which I have taken the liberty of highlighting):

Participants said their sport — along with just about every other aspect of life in Gaza — has been hurt by an Israeli-Egyptian blockade imposed after the Islamic militant group Hamas seized the territory from forces loyal to Palestinians President Mahmoud Abbas in 2007.

The closure keeps even the buffest contestants from competing outside the territory.

On the other hand, some of the musclemen have had more time to train since Hamas took over. Many of the Gaza bodybuilders are former security men loyal to Abbas and continue to draw a salary from his West Bank government, on condition that they stay home and not work for Hamas.

Aren't they sort of working for Hamas anyway by participating in its gay bodybuilding tourneys?

Jon Stewart of Comedy Central has impressed some on the right with his bold defense of network compadres, those South Park dudes. You'll recall that the two transgressives (remember when they cross-dressed at the Oscars?) made fun of infidel timorousness re Islam by showing a cartoon bear. But let's look at Stewart's full statement. Sure, at first he stands up foursquare for free speech and the right to poke fun at anything and everything. But then his spine seems to liquify and his cojones become two sizes too small (my bolds):

While Mr. Stewart came down heavily in favor of his “good friends and colleagues, Trey and Matt,” he said of Comedy Central: “It’s their right. We all serve at their pleasure. I have, more than once, been called out of my home on a Sunday to dance for the head of programming at his winter chalet.”

Mr. Stewart said Comedy Central had probably censored the “South Park” episode to protect its employees “from possible harmful repercussions.” “Although,” he added, “after forcing many of these same employees to work on ‘Mind of Mencia’ and ‘Krod Mandoon,’ damage done. But again, they sign the checks.”

In a word, it buys influence. Influence on campus, where Saudi shekels have bought up entire Middle East departments so that the Arab/Muslim narrative will prevail. Influence in media; see FOX News, now partly owned by a Saudi moneybags and thus understandably reluctant to criticize matters Islamic. Influence in the financial sector via sharia banking (which is far more apartheid in practice than anything to do with Israel). Influence in matters religious and ideological, since it funds mosques and madrassahs galore. And now--now--Barack Insein Obama, the stupidest smart president ever, wants the Saudis to become even more involved in the American economy and the Saudis, no surprise, are saying, "Great, where do we sign up?" Here's the Arab News report on how it's going down in--perfect location--Chicago:

...While the forum's theme of "The US and Saudi Arabia: A New Economic Order" was elaborated through a variety of lenses and business perspectives, the subtext of each panel's presentations was the recent global financial crisis and how the messages of that catastrophe have served to catalyze the need for increased communication and cooperation.

Minister of Commerce and Industry Abdullah Zainal Alireza, CEO of the Arab-British Chamber of Commerce Afana Al-Shuaiby, James Albaugh of Boeing and US Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke spoke of the long relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia and how these two powerful and influential countries must partner even more extensively to strengthen the global economy.

The same underlying themes were expressed by each speaker: The need to diversify, the need to embrace the concepts of sustainability and environmentally friendly practices, the need for a firm stance against protectionism, and the recognition that the private sector is a vital part of the world economy - a rising tide that will lift all boats.

While they all recognized that challenges still exist that must be faced and overcome, including the still-fragile global economic recovery, they clearly felt that this forum truly marks a new chapter in US-Saudi Arabian friendship and a newly strengthened resolve to work together for prosperity and peace.

Would the government please explain why it refused entry to British MP George Galloway but admitted U.S. conservative Ann Coulter.

Allow me to answer on its behalf, Jimbo. The reason the government barred entry to Galloway but not to Coulter is because of the two, only Galloway was/is in cahoots with Hamas.

Update: My letter:

I find letter-writer James Hiller’s query--Would the government please explain why it refused entry to British MP George Galloway but admitted U.S. conservative Ann Coulter?-- more than a little ironic. Although she was freely admitted into Canada, Ms. Coulter ended up being silenced by an angry mob of the politically correct at the University of Ottawa. Mr. Galloway, on the other hand, who was barred entry at the border because of his known association with Hamas, an organization Canada considers to be a terrorist outfit, was actually able to speak to those who had assembled to hear him in Toronto via closed-circuit broadcast.

The next time--if there is a next time--she wants to be heard here in Canada, Ms. Coulter would be well-advised to steal a page from the Galloway playbook, and do so from a safe haven back in the U.S.

The National Post describes our farcical "human rights" system as a "circus". (Well, it does have lots of clowns, and once you get on one of its "rides," it is awfully hard to get off.) I think there's an even better analogy: our "human rights" system has turned us into a jokester at B.C. comedy club, and we're each of us waiting on tenterhooks for the lesbian heckler who takes us down.

I once wrote that Obama bugged me because he reminded me of the smug, smartypants college guys who were program directors/unit heads at the Zionist summer camps I attended as a teen. (These cool-in-their-own minds brainiacs used to organize "fun" evening programs inspired by their sociology/psychology/political science studies in which were were essentially their helpless lab rats. One "experiment" was particularly soul destroying. They forced us to "rank" each other in terms of popularity and line up from most to least popular.) P.J. O'Rourke could well be describing some of those psychological bullies here:

...The secret to the Obama annoyance is snotty lecturing. His tone of voice sends us back to the worst place in college. We sit once more packed into the vast, dreary confines of a freshman survey course—“Rocks for Jocks,” “Nuts and Sluts,” “Darkness at Noon.” At the lectern is a twerp of a grad student—the prototypical A student—insecure, overbearing, full of himself and contempt for his students. All we want is an easy three credits to fulfill a curriculum requirement in science, social science, or fine arts. We’ve got a mimeographed copy of last year’s final with multiple choice answers already written on our wrists. The grad student could skip his classes, the way we intend to, but there the s.o.b. is, taking attendance. (How else to explain this year’s census?)

A climate change scientist who's been getting heat of late is planning to sue the makers of a youtube video spoofing the climate change racket. From FOX News:

Michael Mann, one of the central figures in the recent climate-data scandal, is best known for his "hockey stick graph," which was the key visual aid in explaining how the world is warming at an alarming rate and in connecting the rise to the increase in use of carbon fuels in this century. E-mails stolen from a university in England were released online, revealing exchanges between climatologists and a reference to a "trick" that Mann had used to get the graph to portray what global warming scientists wanted to see.

The parody video, titled "Hide the Decline," had more than 500,000 viewers on YouTube and received national attention when Rush Limbaugh played it on his radio show. It features a cat with a guitar, a talking tree, and a dancing figure sporting the image of Professor Mann. It's the use of his image that Mann is complaining about, arguing that the video supports "efforts to sell various products and merchandise."

Oh, so you mean he's not objecting to being made a laughingstock of due to his questionable/dubious science; he's upset that they're using his image to sell stuff? Now there's a chap who has his priorities straight.

US President Barack Obama has announced a series of educational and business exchanges in an effort to improve ties between the US and the Muslim world.Mr Obama unveiled his plans to Muslim entrepreneurs from 50 countries at a summit hosted in Washington.

"Real change comes from the bottom up, and that is why we are here," he said.

The president pledged to host the summit in a landmark speech in Cairo last year, when he called for a "new beginning" to US-Muslim relations.

In his 2009 speech, President Obama called for both sides to make a "sustained effort to respect one another and seek common ground".

The BBC's Kim Ghattas says entrepreneurship is Washington's new tool to improve ties with the Muslim world - by building on people-to-people contact and helping them to create change in their own countries.

Mr Obama said women working in the field of technology in countries with a Muslim majority would be given the chance to work as interns in the US.

He also told the audience of 250 delegates that a new fund promoting global technology and innovation could potentially raise $2bn (£1.3bn) of private investment.

He added that the market was the most powerful force to create opportunities and lift people out of poverty.

The president also said Muslim perceptions of the US must change.

"Real change comes from the bottom up," says the man who's transforming the nation from the top down. "Women working in the field of technology in countries with a Muslim majority would be given the chance to work as interns in the US"--thereby putting them at risk of being killed for "dishonouring" their families because they've working in Great Satan sans their menfolk's supervision. "Muslim perceptions of the US must change"--good luck with that one, kafir.

I’ve noticed something peculiar about “moderate” Muslims: they are mostly leftists, yet liberal policies are the very ones steering the country more toward what they escaped under Sharia and what they continue to fight against. It was moderates who intervened to reverse a plan for Sharia law in Liberal Ontario. Under the old regimes from where moderates came, Religion and State are oppressively intertwined, so when Conservatives even mention the need to protect our Judeo-Christian roots, it triggers a theocratic association and with it an irrational fear of being targeted for discrimination under a racist, Judeo-Christian rule. They don’t get it. It’s not that anyone wants to preach religion from Parliament or The White House. It’s about protecting the very freedoms that attracts immigrants here. Back home they have been historically brainwashed from young about the Great Satan America with her lackeys in Canada, especially the conservatives– so there’s confusion accentuated by the Leftist illusion about being champions of the oppressed.

Interestingly enough, "moderate" Jews seem to be labouring under the same delusions.

I learned something new today via this article in the National Post. Until now it had been my understanding that if a "Human Rights" Commission rejected a complaint, it could not then be taken up by the same jurisdiction's "Human Rights" Tribunal. Apparently, that's not so (my bolds):

The family of Luc Cagadoc, a young Filipino student from Montreal, claims the boy was discriminated against by his elementary school's staff for eating his lunch Filipino-style -- cutting his food with a fork and scooping it into his mouth with a spoon. This week, the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal came down on Luc's side, awarding $17,000 to his family for racial and ethnic prejudice. The episode provides yet another example of how over-reaching the human-rights industry has become and how desperately it needs to be reined in.

In 2006, Luc, who is now 11, was apparently reprimanded repeatedly by the lunchroom monitor at his school in Montreal's Marguerite Bourgeoys school district for allegedly disrupting the other young diners by "eating like a pig," using his two-utensil technique to slurp food into his mouth. On several occasions when he refused to stop, he was made to sit by himself at a separate table. When his mother, Maria-Theresa Gallardo, questioned the principal about her son's treatment, she claims he said Luc should learn to "eat like a Canadian."

Ms. Gallardo insisted that the fork-and-spoon dining method is so integral to Filipino cultural identity that an attempt to stop her son for eating that way amounted to racial or at least cultural discrimination. The school board countered that no one ever said Luc should learn to eat "like a Canadian" (not that we see anything wrong with school officials teaching children the sort of decorum required in Canadian society); and that the reason he was repeatedly admonished by the lunch monitor was that his loud and animated eating was disturbing to some of his classmates.

It is impossible to tell which version of events is true. The Quebec Human Rights Commission (a separate entity from the rights tribunal that made the award against the school board) refused to take up the case for lack of evidence when Ms. Gallardo first approached them. Too much of the case depended on whose word could be taken as true...

I don't get it--the QHRC said there wasn't enough evidence to proceed, but the QHRT not only accepted the case but used the same absent evidence to rule in favour of the complainant?

Something smells really bad here--and it isn't the food in school lunchroom.

Get a load of the name of the judge who's hearing the George Galloway case (from the G&M):

The two noisy demonstrations that faced off against each other on a downtown Toronto street Monday underlined the intense feelings focused on George Galloway, the iconoclastic British MP who was prevented from coming to Canada last year for a speaking tour.

About four dozen protesters, who wanted the court to quash the government decision that kept Mr. Galloway out of Canada, chanted “Defend free speech!” as they lined the sidewalk in front of the office building where the Federal Court of Canada sits.

A few feet away, another two dozen people brought in by the Jewish Defence League of Canada waved Israeli flags and tried to shout the others down with cries of “No support for terrorism!"

Inside the court, the hearing in front of Mr. Justice Richard Mosley was postponed until Wednesday, because one of the lawyers, Barbara Jackman, had injured her foot in an early-morning fall and wanted to have it checked out in hospital...

What are the odds? Looks like two Mosleys will be present in the courtroom--the judge and the new Oswald.

It was neck and neck in the Sudan elections for about...well, actually, it was never neck and neck, and the "election" results were pretty much a foregone conclusion before anyone bothered (or was coerced) to cast a ballot. FYI, the sitting despot "won" by a landslide.From the NYT:

NAIROBI, Kenya — Sudan’s incumbent president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, handily won the country’s first multiparty election in more than 20 years, according to results released on Monday, offering a glimpse into the kind of lopsided contests that may continue if the nation splits in two next year as expected.

Mr. Bashir got 68 percent of the vote, though many international observers said the election was marred by intimidation, gerrymandering and fraud. Right before the voting started in mid-April, several of the top opposition parties abruptly dropped out of the race, clearing a path for Mr. Bashir.

In southern Sudan, which is preparing to vote on whether to split off from the north and become its own country, the incumbent there, Salva Kiir, prevailed as well, winning 93 percent of the vote to remain president of that semiautonomous region.

The results were neither surprising nor evidence of a sudden blossoming of democracy. But that does not necessarily mean the election was insignificant. It was essentially Step One of what could be a very messy divorce.

Southern Sudan is expected to secede next year from Sudan, which could bring turbulence to the largest country in Africa, at nearly one million square miles. The southern Sudanese, who are mostly Christian and animist, have been chafing for independence from northern Arab domination since Sudan became independent in 1956, and have fought two long civil wars with the north since then. Some names for Africa’s next country are already being floated. “New Sudan” is one of them. “South Sudan” is another...

A leading Israeli airport security expert has pronounced that Canada’s new full-body scanners are a waste of the federal government’s money, Canwest reported.

"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told officials probing the state of aviation safety in Canada on Thursday. "That's why we haven't put them in our airport."

Sela is a former chief security officer at the Israel Airport Authority and a 30-year veteran in airport security and defence technology. He took part in designing the security technology at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport.

Sela's assertions on the imaging machines come following the Canadian government’s purchase of 44 body scanners for major Canadian airports. Each machine cost $250,000 and is being used for secondary screening to detect anything non-metallic, unless the passenger prefers to be physically frisked.

Transport Minister John Baird announced the hastened implementing of the scanners days after a Nigerian man attempted to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day.

Sela told Canadian airport security officials, however, that they are “running after the incidents instead of being in front of them."

Junior Transport Minister Rob Merrifield defended the Canadian government’s $11-million investment, saying "Full-body scanners are used by dozens of countries around the world and are considered one of the most effective methods of screening." He added that the scanners fit Canada’s already strict security requirements.

Sela suggested, however, that it would make more sense to create a system where pre-approved, low-risk passengers could move more quickly through an expedited security check, allowing increased focus and resources for the screening areas. Behaviour profiling is also of the utmost importance, Sela added.

Political scientist Mark Salter, an aviation security expert at the University of Ottawa, disagreed with Sela, calling the scanning machines a "genuine leap forward," as not only can they detect more familiar threats such as liquids or metals, but they can identify non-metallic threats as well. He referred to the full-body scanner as a “much better mouse trap."...

I am reading--devouring, really--Pascal Bruckner's brilliant, thrilling The Tyranny of Guilt, which is billed as "an essay on Western masochism." I thought I'd share this passage, which, though written by a Frenchman from a French persepective, pinpoints almost everything that's wrong with Canada's understanding of "human rights" (my bolds):

(I)n April 2001 France created a state secretary's office for victims, which is supposed to deal with "the memory of past and present victims, and also with potential victims," and that opens up, one will have to admit, a very broad spectrum. On December 30 of that same year, a High Authority for fighting discrimination and equality (Haute Autorité de Lutte contre les Discriminations et pour l'Egalité), which is to defend all persons who have to suffer because of "their origin, gender, physical appearance, family name, sexual orientation, handicap, age, religion, or opinion," was created. We see the danger: the creation of a clientele of unfortunate persons who did not know they were unfortunate but whom these provisions will stimulate. We are not thereby healing wounds but creating new ones. "I was unhappy, I didn't know it, the government convinced me of it." Will we someday create a new ministry for the emotionally distressed? We are diverting public power from its traditional responsibilities and reducing it to the role of a psychologist, a social worker, a consoler of the afflicted.

Bruckner doesn't mention whether the Haute Autorité can ease the pain of the afflicted with lots of moolah, as our "human rights" system is set up to do, but one can easily see how a monetary payoff would add exponentially to the incentive to feel wounded and seek redress. Then, too, there's added incentive because there's no downside to complaining. Even if you lose, you win, because you've subjected the person who you think has wronged you to the ordeal of the "human rights" process--which is punitive in and of itself since it can cost him many thousands of dollars in legal fees and time wasted having to fight back--while you're not out of pocket so much as a cent. As for Bruckner's quip about "a Ministry for the Emotionally Distressed": can you think of a better way to describe our HRCs 'n' Ts?

The chap shown here wearing the Palestinian jihad shmatta will find out today whether Canada will overturn its ban on his deplorable, Hamas-fund-raising presence and allow him into the country. I say, if he isn't a Hamas-fund-raiser, let him in.

Washington says “all options are on the table” in dealing with Tehran, in a veiled threat, which refers to a new US nuclear policy.

During a Sunday address to attendees of a Pentagon briefing, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates touched on the newly-crafted Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), under which the Obama administration promises not to use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess nuclear warheads, with the exception of Iran.

Gates asserted that the 22,000-word Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) does not apply to countries such as Iran and North Korea because they belong to a certain category of states that Washington will never limit its options against.

The US defense secretary further added that the Obama administration is taking measures to apply a policy of "no first use of nuclear weapons". However, he asserted, the administration is not ready to fully relinquish its right for pre-emptive strikes.

The NPR was met with instant condemnation in Iran, which has been a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1968, yet was excluded from the list of non-atomic states insured against US nuclear weapons.

The United States is the first country in the world to develop such weapons, and is the only country to have used them in wartime.

Washington officials, notably those in the White House, are driven by the notion that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons.

Tehran has rejected the claims, saying that its uranium enrichment is intended solely for peaceful civilian applications such as the production of electricity and radio medicines.

Istanbul, Turkey (CNN) -- Hair driers blast air and racks of clothing clatter past as organizers make their final preparations for a fashion show.

Some of the backstage bustle is downright comical. Short Turkish women, carefully wrapped up in trench-coats and brightly-colored Muslim headscarves, struggle to help towering, leggy models from Slavic and Latin countries change in and out of outfits.

This is not your typical fashion show. The show is highlighting Islamic women's clothing -- even though very few of the models working here are Muslim.

"Listen, I'm coming from Venezuela [where] we are always walking in shorts, t-shirts, flip-flops. Not afraid to show it. But here it's totally different," said Cristina Buderacky, a model who stood more then six feet tall in a peach-colored lycra outfit that resembled a pair of long-sleeved pyjamas with blousy trousers.

She later made a half-serious plea for help as a Turkish woman slipped a two-piece "bonnet" over her head. The headpiece tightly covered Buderacky's hair, leaving only her neck and face exposed.

Nearby, a Russian-speaking model dressed in a sky-blue version of the same outfit whispered to a friend, "I look like a clown."

Moments later, to the soundtrack of throbbing dance music, the women strutted across the stage dressed in an array of these pastel-colored costumes. The costumes are part of a swimsuit collection.

Known as Hasema after the Turkish company that manufactures them, the full-body suits are designed to let conservative women swim and exercise at the beach or pool without being too revealing.

Turan Kisa, an export marketer for Hasema, said the suits are exported to 35 countries."Muslim women are choosing these models," he said holding up a sequin-embroidered lilac-colored full-body bathing suit. "Especially the last five years, Muslim women [are] really following fashion."

According to the manufacturers at this trade show, the Islamic women's fashion industry is growing and evolving. It also seems to be co-opting sales and marketing methods perfected in the secular fashion world...

Sunday, April 25, 2010

The Vancouver Sun reports on a great "human rights" victory. A lone individual staring down--and standing his ground against--a government tank a la Tiananmen Square, perhaps? No, nothing like that. This being Canada, where the "human rights" infractions are Trudeapian-sized--i.e. Lilliputian--it involves a lone individual standing his ground against insults about his, um, cutlery:

MONTREAL — A Montreal family of Filipino origin is rejoicing over its victory in a school-cafeteria dispute that ate up a lot of money and time.

“Hopefully it’s all over and we can move on,” Maria-Theresa Gallardo said Saturday of a Quebec Human Rights Tribunal ruling that awarded her, and son Luc Gagadoc, $17,000 in damages for how the boy was treated over his eating habits at Ecole Lalande in the borough of Pierrefonds-Roxboro.

“Of course we’re happy (with the ruling), but we just hope (the school board) won’t appeal,” Gallardo said, referring to the Margeurite Bourgeoys School Board.

Even though the award is less than the $24,000 sought in moral and punitive damages in the claim of racial and ethnic discrimination, Gallardo said she is still pleased with the amount...

No kidding. 17 Gs just because someone made fun of your table comportment? I'd say that, all things considered, it's an exceptionally good pay day. Like winning the lottery without even having to buy a ticket.

For nearly 13 years, the irreverent -- to put it mildly -- cartoon show "South Park" has ridiculed every sacred convention in the book, from major religions and celebrities to gays and the physically disabled.

Nearly every bit of over-the-top satire has outraged someone or some group and prompted calls for the show to be boycotted or even banned.

And each time, for better or for worse, the program's network, Comedy Central, has stood firmly behind creator-producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

Except when it comes to Islam and the prophet Mohammed.

This week, to mark its 200th episode, "South Park" featured a bit in which the characters try to figure out how to portray Mohammed without actually showing him. The show ended up showing him dressed in a bear costume.

Even that prompted a posting on a New York-based Web site, Revolution Muslim, that "warned" Parker and Stone they would end up like Theo Van Gogh -- the Dutch filmmaker killed in 2004 by an Islamic terrorist after he made a film dealing with abuse of Muslim women.

The producers sought to address that threat in the next episode -- but Comedy Central ordered any mention and depiction of Mohammed bleeped.

Shamefully, a character's 35-second speech at the episode's conclusion, warning against "intimidation and fear," was bleeped out completely -- even though it didn't mention Mohammed at all...

The Koran commands the faithful to

fight those who have not faith in God, nor in the Hereafter, and (who) forbid not what God and His Prophet have forbidden and (who ) are not committed to the religion of truth, of those who have been brought the Book, until they pay tribute by hand, and they are the low. (9:29)

I'd say they're 9/10ths of the way there, wouldn't you? Also--I'm sure I'm not alone in saying: South Park has been on for 13 years?

Update: This is the dude CC lowered itself to like a timorous little dhimmi? What a laugh!

Harpoon Siddiqui loves multiculturalism, the Trudeaupian tripe foisted on us decades ago that has brought the worst aspects of the old country right here to Canada. What with seething Sikhs, creeping sharia and zesty campus Zionhass, though, the doctrine is defintitely showing its age. Not that Harpoon is prepared to see the decrepitude. No, as far as he's concerned, multiculti is fresh as a daisy. The problem is that certain card-carrying Liberals--and he does name names--are disrespecting the doctine and, even worse, are behaving exactly like--gasp!--conservatives:

...[Ujjal] Dosanjh, an otherwise sensible politician, is spouting populist nonsense [about Sikhs]. He is a Liberal giving credence to illiberal notions of multiculturalism and its founding document, the Charter of Rights.

But then, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is not much of a liberal, either. Take his support of Quebec's draconian bill to deprive all public services, even health care, to Muslim taxpayers who don the niqab.

His position is distressingly similar to Stephen Harper's and Nicolas Sarkozy's and others in Europe toying with the totalitarian notion of anti-veil morality squads...

So who is a "liberal" these days, Harpoon? You? That line about totalitarian morality squads (along with much of your other writing) tends to argue otherwise, putting you squarely in the leftoid control freak/authoritarian camp--which hardly qualifies as classic liberalism and is more (much more) like a version of sharia-lite.

In the growing gloom of world politics, it’s a bit of good news that Iran has dropped its bid for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Having tossed its turban into the ring back in February, Iran’s regime quietly withdrew its candidacy this past week.

Next, the bad news:

Iran’s withdrawal redeems neither the UN Human Rights Council, nor Iran. The Human Rights Council has yet to move beyond, or rise above, the bigotry underlying its hosting last year of the Durban Review Conference (starring Iran’s semi-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and the bias of the Goldstone Report (giving a pass to the Hamas terrorist crowd ruling Gaza, while vilifying Israel). As for Iran’s regime, it had no business presenting itself in the first place as a candidate for anything to do with human rights — even if only in name. That Tehran had the gall to attempt this was obscene, though understandable in light of the sleaze that has permeated the Human Rights Council itself.

Nor does Iran’s withdrawal from this candidacy mean it is relegated to the ranks of UN wallflowers. Iran currently holds seats on the governing boards of a number of major UN agencies, including UNICEF, the UN Development Program, or UNDP (which it chaired last year) and the World Food Program. For the past five years, Ahmadinejad has enjoyed a place on the stage of the General Assembly opening in New York,and there’s every reason to expect he’ll be back this September. The UN Security Council remains perversely reluctant to approve any measures strong enough to flummox the mullahs into dropping their bomb program or respecting the human rights of their own people.

I dunno. Kind of sounds like the bad vastly outweighs the good. (But then, mightn't one say that of the entire UN?)

Please Visit

Followers

About Me

Scaramouche is my nom de Web. My real name is Mindy G. Alter, and I like to think of myself as a free speecher with a sense of humour. My bailiwick: fighting on behalf of all the good things that free speech helps safeguard, and doing my utmost to highlight the malevolence and imbicilities of those who oppose freedom, whomever they may be.